Energy Generation from Animal Wastes

Natalie Aguilar-Carranza, Cynthia Valenzuela

Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California at Berkeley

Why Manure To Energy?

California

is home to about 1.7 million dairy cows accounts for about 1.4 percent of the total GHG emissions in the state. 2004 Water Quality Report to Congress, EPA found that 45.93% of rivers, 37.68% of lakes, and 63.32 % of estuaries analyzed were impaired due to agriculture.

In

Raw manure is up to 160 times more toxic than municipal sewage. produced by cows has 23 times the green house gas potential than CO2 .

Methane

Environmental Impacts

Anaerobic Digestion Process

Acid Forming Bacteria

ORGANIC
MATTER

SIMPLE ORGANIC ACIDS

BIOGAS

Methane Forming Bacteria

Energy From Manure

Manure Collection Manure Processing

Manure Separation

Anaerobic Digestion

Design Analysis
General Information Name: Type: Location : Animal Population: Pilot Dairy Dairy Farm Marysville, CA Lactating (850 heads) Dry (150 heads) Heifer (150 heads) Calf (700 heads)

Design Criteria: Number of confined animals Stable manure production Compatibility with digester technology Use of energy produced Efficiency to manage the system

Confinement Free Stall Barn + Open Lot (4) Type: Manure Collection Flush System System: Concrete Settling Pond (2) Earthen Storage Pond (2)
Monthly Energy Consumption: Approx. 20,000 kWh at $0.12 per kWh

Most Suitable Digester System:

Psychrophilic Covered Lagoon

Covered Lagoon Digester

Lagoon Basin

Volume = Total Solids* HRT + Volatile Solids* Load Rate + Sludge Volume

 Base Lining
-60 mils. HDPE -Non-woven geotextile

Courtesy : David Albers. Vintage Dairy, Riverdale, CA.

 Floating Cover
Floating covers are flexible plastic membranes which are fastened to a concrete wall or buried in anchor trenches. Purposes: Prevent heat loss Prevent overflow and site contamination from rain water Control fumes and odors Prevent the escape of methane gas Material: 60 mils HDPE

 Anchor Trench
The cover was designed using the bank-to-bank design approach Bank-to-bank covers completely span the lagoon surface. The edges of the cover are secured by burial in perimeter trenches. Advantages: Rain exclusion No emissions (sealed) Biogas storage Low maintenance

Schematic of Covered Lagoon System

Results
Methane Production
Expected Monthly Methane Production
1.40E+06 1.30E+06 Methane Yield (ft3) 1.20E+06 1.10E+06 1.00E+06 9.00E+05 8.00E+05 7.00E+05 6.00E+05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Months 9 10 11 12 ChenHashimoto Model

Empirical Model

Annual methane production: approximately 11.8 million cubic feet Annual revenue: ~ $88 400 (sell all at $0.09/kWh) ~ $66 200 (sell surplus at $0.09/kWh)

 Environmental Performance
Parameters Air Quality Parameters Methane emissions (lb/yr) Hydrogen Sulfide Reduction Odor Control Ammonia Loss Water Quality Parameters COD (%) Total Nitrogen (%) Total Phosphorus (%) Fecal Coliforms , Log10 CFU Pathogens, Log10 CFU (%) 91,256.2 None None 88% 99 93 98 1.6 ~0 Notable reduction Notable due to ammonia reduction 92% 99 94 96 3.6 Conventional Systems Biogas Systems

1.8 (Salmonella ssp)

2.7 (Salmonella ssp)

Economic Analysis
Initial investment: $521,941

O & M: $26,097
Revenue: Chen-Hashimoto: $87,782 Empirical: $66,182 Zero Salvage Value and Decommissioning after 15 yrs Simple Payback Period 8.5 years

Risk Analysis
Base liner failure modes: Punctures and holes in geomembrane Cover failure modes: Tearing and sinking of cover Uncertainties in anchor trench: Mainly due to calculation of required stresses Probability of failure of system due to volume capacity: 1.5% Probability of failure due to inadequate maintenance: 30%

Engineering Constraints
Environment Leakage CO2 Emissions Politics Conflicting Regulations Economics Capital Cost Financing Energy Price

Interfaces
Engineering "One size does not fit all" Operations Management Efficiency Construction Multiple Teams Handling of HDPE

Pros and Cons of Anaerobic Digesters

Benefits
Odor and fly control Renewable energy

Concerns
Nitrogen

production Distributed generation of electricity Potential increase in value as fertilizer Greenhouse reduction Pathogen destruction

and ammonia emissions Water pollution Air emissions from combusting biogas Safety

References
CATERPILLAR INC., (2009). Powered By Biogas. Web. 26 February 2010. <http://www.capitalmachinery.com.tw/Powered-byBiogas.html> Chastain, John P. Pollution Potential of Livestock Manure, Minnesota/Wisconsin Engineering Notes, Winter 1995. Web. 23 February 2010. <http://www.bbe.umn.edu/extens/ennotes/enwin95/manure.html> Fogarty, D. (2007). Potent Methane is an Overlooked Greenhouse Gas. USA Today. Online. 5 February 2010. <http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-04-30-methane_N.htm>. Fleshman, Joseph, Lorraine Gonzalez, Angie Gould, Lynette Green, Mike Leaon, James Lee, Heather Louie, Manpreet Mattu, Sandy Miller, Amy Morgan, Payam Narvand, Garry ONeill, Jason Orta, Heather Raitt, Rachel Salazar, Kate Zocchetti. 2008 Annual Report to the Legislature. California Energy Commission. October 2008. Publication number: CEC3002008008CMF. <http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-300-2008-008/CEC-300-2008-008CMF.PDF> Fulhage, C. D., Sievers, D., Fischer, J. R. (1993). Generating Methane Gas from Manure. University of Missouri Extension. Web. 5 February 2010. http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/ DisplayPub.aspx?P=G1881#waste Hollys Wastewater Treatment Plant. (2009). The Treatment Process. Web. 11 February 2010. <http://home.comcast.net/~hollywastewater/Process.htm> Nelson, C., Lamb, J. (2002). Final Report: Haubenschild Farms Anaerobic Digester. The Minnesota Project. Web. 27 February 2010. <http://www.theminnesotaproject.org/publications/Haubyrptupdated.pdf>. Sharpe, R. R., Harper, L. A., Byers, F. M. (2001). Methane Emissions from Swine Lagoons in Southeastern US. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90, 17-24. State of California. The California Energy Commission. Californias Renewable Energy Program. Web. 23 February 2010.< http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html> State of California. California Environmental Protection Agency. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Web. 20 February 2010. <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/cafo.shtml> State of California. California Air Resource Board. Dairy Manure Biogas Production Projects (Dairy Digesters). Web. 23 February 2010. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/manuremgmt/digester-fact-sheet-lookhere.pdf> The Sustainable Energy Holdings Inc., Waste Treatment by Dry Digestion. Web. 27 February 2010. <http://enermac.com/Strabab-SEHL.htm> Twenty-First Strategies, LLC. (2009). Animal Waste Methane Energy Recovery. Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Industry Climate Initiative. Web. 5 February 2010. <http:// www.uspowerpartners.org/Topics/SECTION6TopicAnimalWasteMethane.htm.> United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment Data for the State of California Year 2004. Web. 20 February 2010. <http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/w305b_report_control.get_report?p_state=CA&p_cycle=#STREAM/CREEK/RIVER_im p_state_top_ten

Questions?

Q&A Slides

Determining the Best Approach

Animal Type Climate
Collection System Flush Moderate to Warm Scrape & Parlor Wash Water Scrape & Parlor Scrape -Manure Only Flush Cold Scrape & Parlor Wash Water Scrape & Parlor Scrape -Manure Only Estimated Min. Ratio of Water: Manure 10:1 4:1 - 1.1:1 N/A 10:1 4:1 - 1.1:1 N/A % Total Solids < 3% 3% - 11% > 11% < 3% 3% - 8% > 11% Digester Type Covered Lagoon Complete Mix Plug Flow Covered Lagoon Complete Mix Plug Flow

Dairy

Design Analysis Data

Manure Characteristics as Excreted ( per head)

Weight (lb)
Lactating Dry Heifer Calf 1000 1000 550 120

Manure (lb/d/head) 80 82 46.75 7.896

TS VS N P (lb/d/head) (lb/d/head) (lb/d/head) (lb/d/head) 10.000 11.600 5.885 1.104 8.5000 8.1000 4.2735 0.9120 0.45 0.36 0.1705 0.0384 0.07 0.05 0.022 0.012

Volumetric Manure Production Rate

Uses of Biogas

Dairy Manure Fibers